Wednesday, 4/23/97 Proposition 209 blocked by federal review
lawsuit Groups sue to overturn appellate ruling upholding
initiative
By Hannah Miller Daily Bruin Senior Staff The battle over
Proposition 209 moved to higher legal ground Tuesday, temporarily
halting the implementation of the initiative. A lawsuit filed by
various civil rights groups is requesting that a panel of federal
judges review the April 8 appellate court decision that declared
the proposition constitutional. The review process immediately puts
a halt to implementation of the measure, which passed with a
54-percent majority last November. The UCLA Law School and the
Justice Department are among the coalition of legal groups filing
for a review. If their request is denied, then Proposition 209 will
take effect within the week. "The question is, ‘Will (the judges)
bother to take the case?’" said UCLA law Professor Jonathan Varat.
"They may not like the reasoning of the case, and may simply deny
the review." Proposition 209 would ban affirmative action in
government hiring, housing, contracting and education. It was
challenged in the courts the day after the November election. The
original lawsuit challenged Proposition 209 on the grounds that it
was discriminatory in focusing on gender and race. Government
policies extending benefits to other special groups, such as the
disabled and elderly, were left untouched by the ballot measure.
When a state judge ruled against Proposition 209 last December,
proponents of the initiative successfully appealed the decision to
a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That
panel’s opinion, written by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, held that
preferential treatment had no constitutional guarantee. Although
the appellate decision prompted Gov. Pete Wilson to call for
immediate implementation of the measure, state agencies, including
the UCs, have been unsure of how to respond. The newest appeal
argues that the three-judge panel overstepped its bounds in ruling
Proposition 209 constitutional. As plaintiffs argue, the panel was
only supposed to rule on whether the measure was to be blocked
during the review for constitutionality. The fluctuating fate of
Proposition 209 has not yet affected the UC system. Regardless of
the outcome of this court case, affirmative action in UC admissions
has been marked for eradication by the regents since the summer of
1996. Although UCLA admissions will be impacted by the regent’s
decision starting Spring Quarter 1998, affirmative-action policies
in other departments, such as hiring and cultural affairs, face an
uncertain future. "The wording of 209 is untested and ambiguous,"
said Associate Vice Chancellor Tom Lifka. "But there are financial
aid implications," Lifka said, "and potential implications for
student organizations, for academic support, any place where you
have eligibility justified in race terms." The appeal, filed
Tuesday, asks for review by a 19-judge panel, most of which were
appointed by Republican governors. If that panel approves a review,
then another 11-judge panel will re-decide whether Proposition 209
is constitutional. A majority vote is required to start the review
process, which has no deadline for a decision. Meanwhile, the
future of affirmative action in the UC system remains up in the
air. "Diversity in enrollment remains a goal in the UCs," said
student Regent Jess Bravin. "And now we have to be more creative in
achieving that goal." Minority enrollment for Fall Quarter 1997 has
already shown a drop from previous years, and the passage of
Proposition 209 was widely faulted for the lowered number of
applicants. Proponents of Proposition 209 had responded with hope
to the April 8 decision that promised immediate implementation. The
measure would "really change a lot of things," Regent Stephen
Nakashima said after the favorable appellate court ruling.
"Employers can hire on the basis of the qualifications of the
applicant instead of the color of his or her skin." With reports
from Brooke Olson, Daily Bruin Staff, and from wire services. Daily
Bruin Stories: Poll shows no clear majority on Prop.209